Practical and Sacral Elements of Kingship
Jewish Political Theory -
Hilkhot
Melakhim
SHIUR
#3: Practical and Sacral Elements
of Kingship
By
Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein
In previous shiurim, we examined the mitzva of appointing a king and
attempted to put forward the thesis that there is a dual element involved in the
mitzva: a) appointment of a
sovereign who has the authority of government as the state's executive arm; and
b) the personal election of a monarch as representative of Divine action and
presence upon earth. In this
capacity, he is a sacral figure, sharing certain common characteristics with a
kohen (gadol). This latter role is
unique to the Davidic lineage and does not apply to other
monarchs.
Having established this general principle, we must now elaborate the
ramifications of these dual elements.
The first of these is the status of a non-Davidic king. Based upon the above, all powers of
government required for the state to function are invested in a legitimate
acting ruler, even if he is not of Davidic lineage or even a monarch. The gemara in Yoma (73b) states that
only a king can submit requests to the Urim Ve-tumim, and that the source for
this are the verses relating to Yehoshua bin Nun:
"'Only the king or
the Head of the Court or one whom the community requires may inquire of the Urim
Ve-tumim' (Mishna Yoma 71b) - From where do we learn this? R. Abbahu answered: From the verse, 'And
he [Yehoshua] shall stand before the kohen, who shall ask counsel for him after
the judgment of the Urim ... [at his word they shall go out, and at his word
they shall come in, both he, and benei Yisrael with him, even all the
congregation' (Bemidbar 27:21): 'he' refers to the kohen anointed for war; 'even
all the congregation' refers to the Sanhedrin."
This, though, raises an obvious question. The gemara proves that only a king can
use the Urim Ve-tumim by citing a verse relating to Yehoshua, who wasn't a king
himself but rather a shofet (leader).
At first glance, it would seem that rather than proving its point, the
gemara is actually contradicting itself.
However, the answer is simple.
Had the privilege of using the Urim Ve-tumim been due to the sacral
element of the kingship, which would have enabled him to communicate with God in
a more direct manner (similar to the halakha permitting him to sit in the
mikdash), then it would indeed apply only to bona fide Davidic kings. However, if use of the Urim Ve-tumim is
not a personal prerogative but rather a tool available to the public to assist
ii in determining public policy, then it is available to any person leading the
public on issues of public security.
Since Yehoshua was the head of government, it is he who can use the Urim
Ve-tumim, and for these purposes he is called "melekh," which here means "head
of government." Therefore, we can
conclude that Yehoshua and other non-Davidic rulers are considered melekh
(sovereign) on all issues of government, but not on issues of personal
status. Thus, the Rambam (Hilkhot
Melakhim 1:3) cites the example of Yehoshua as a source for the halakhot
regulating the election of a king, since he deals with the selection process as
a mechanism to choose a head of government, and not as a means of designating
God's chosen.
This principle is explicit in the Rambam's treatment of the status of a
non-Davidic king.
"If a prophet
appointed a [non-Davidic] king, and that king followed the path of the Torah and
the mitzva and fought God's battles, then he is [indeed] a king and all the laws
of monarchy apply to him, despite the fact that
kingship principally applies to David and there will be a king of his
seed. For Achiya Ha-shiloni
appointed Yeravam king and told him, 'If you hearken to all that I command you
... then I will build you a sure house, as I built for David ...' (I Melakhim
11:38). And Achiya also told him,
'And to [Shlomo's] son I will give one tribe, that my servant David may have a
lamp always before Me in Jerusalem ...' (11:36)."
As can be seen, such a king has legitimacy, yet is inferior to a Davidic
king regarding the dynastic element and the form of anointment. The legitimacy is due to his capacity as
an active ruler, while the lack of a dynastic element reflects the fact that the
perpetuation of the monarchy in a single family is not an issue of government
but of personal status. This same
point, though cloaked in somewhat different terminology is made by the Ra'avad
(Hilkhot Melakhim 1:9) and especially by the Ramban (Bereishit 49:10) who states
that "Even though Israel may appoint themselves a king from another tribe,
according to the needs of the hour, this king is not to be anointed, so that he
will lack the splendor of majesty and will instead be like a judge or
officer."
This is exactly the point that he is making: for the practical needs of
government ("tzorekh ha-sha'a"), such a person is the recognized ruler, but he
lacks the glory ("hod malkhut") since that is a function of the kedusha inherent
the melekh as a sacral figure which is unique to Davidic
kings.
The same principle holds true in he opposite case, i.e., a Davidic king
who has lost his practical authority.
If the issue at hand is an issue of government, then he is not considered
a king, while if we are dealing with a halakha relating to his personal status,
then he retains his status as a royal.
(To make the same point in "yeshivish"/Brisker terminology, he has a
chalut shem melekh be-gavra but he cannot perform the ma'aseh of
governing.)
This distinction is brought home by the sugyot relating to the nasi
(ruler). The nasi, if he sins, does
not bring the usual korban chatat (sin offering) but rather a special chatat,
specifically designated for him (see Vayikra 4:22-26), just as the kohen gadol
brings a korban which is unique to him.
As explained in the mishna in Horayot (10a), the nasi referred to in the
pasuk is the king: "Who is the 'nasi?'
It is the king, as it is written ... [If he transgresses any of the
commandments of the Lord HIS God.'"
Thus, both the king and the kohen gadol have special korbanot. However, the opening mishna of the third
perek in Horayot determines that a retired kohen gadol (mashuach she-avar)
brings the special kohen gadol korban, while a retired (or deposed) king does
not. Based upon the above, the
meaning of this is that the kohen gadol's sacrifice is a function of his
personal sanctity and is not due to his job as the chief kohen. This is attested to by the fact that the
mishna there states that only a kohen gadol who has actually been appointed
brings the special korban and not a functioning kohen gadol who hasn't been
anointed (merubeh begadim), the difference between them being in their
respective levels of kedusha and not in their functions in
mikdash.
The status of nasi, however, is not a function of one's personal kedusha
but of his office. This is attested
to by the very fact that he is described as a nasi rather than a melekh (i.e.,
he is defined in terms of the authority of his position rather than his royal
title) and by the fact that the gemara (11a) considers various people in
positions of authority (such as the tribal nasi) and determines that the level
of authority is the deciding factor.
(See Rambam, Hilkhot Shegagot 9:10.)
Therefore, if the king is an active king, accompanied by all the dangers
and temptations of abuse of power, there is a special chatat to emphasize the
dangers involved in his power, while a retired king, who has forfeited his
power, brings a regular individual chatat. Actually, any king stripped of his
authority reverts to the regular chatat.
Thus, the Yerushalmi in Horayot states in a famous passage that even
David Ha-melekh himself did not bring a royal chatat during the period that he
was in exile escaping from Avshalom's revolt.
In conclusion, a few observations should be made regarding the
application of this principle in relation to various biblical
episodes.
A. Yehoshua, as mentioned above, was a
functional king without the personal status of the melekh as a meshiach Hashem
(anointed of God). Therefore,
whatever halakhot of kingship apply to him can be understood to relate to all
rulers. The practical ramifications
of this will be dealt with in future instalments (bli
neder).
Though this interpretation is the one which we have adopted and which
seems to explain the status of Yehoshua as presented in the biblical and
rabbinic sources, mention must be made of the fact that the Mekhilta (Shemot
17:14) claims that Yehoshua was actually anointed. (However, it doesn't specify if shemen
ha-mishcha was used or not.)
B. The status of Shaul is unclear. Was he intended to be only a functional
ruler or also a royal king with the kedusha of malkhei beit David? This, too, will be dealt with at a later
stage of the course (bli neder).
C. The verses describing the loss of
Rechavam's kingdom are careful to use the phrase "mamlakha" which denotes only
the power of government Yerovam is handed over the reins of power, but a
symbolic enclave of Yerushalayim and its surroundings is left to Rechavam, as
the offspring of David, who represents the element of the election of beit David
(see I Melakhim 11).
D. The Rambam recognizes the legitimacy of
later sovereigns, though non-Davidic.
Thus, aside from the halakha quoted above regarding non-Davidic kings,
the Rambam also mentions the fact of Hasmonean monarchy as a positive value
(Hilkhot Chanuka 3:1) and describes the Exilarch (Reish Galuta) as having kingly
authority (Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:13).
Thus, the dual element of kingship expresses itself on all levels. In following shiurim we shall examine
many of the details of monarchy and government, exploring both the ideal system
the Halakha wishes to set up as well as the practical significance of these
laws.